From justin_avril at 163.com Sat Sep 3 16:11:48 2011 From: justin_avril at 163.com (Justin Wu) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 00:11:48 +0800 Subject: I cannot use VNC with vinagre Message-ID: <4E6251C4.6020903@163.com> Hi, This is the steps to reproduce the bug: 1. Enter 'vinagre' in the terminal. 2. Select 'Edit'->'Plug-in'. The vnc plug-in is disabled, and if I want to check the vnc plug-in, an error of missing some .so file will be showed in the terminal. It seems that I have not installed the vinagre package correctly. But the reinstall 'sudo apt-get install vinagre' doesn't fix the problem. I tried to download the missing .so file, but at the end, I found that I could not fix the problem. So any solution to fix it? By the way, my system is Ubuntu 11.04 and it has been upgraded from 10.XX (I don't remember). Maybe the upgrade causes the issue. This is the bug I filed for gnome, but the vinagre developer advises me to report this bug to ubuntu. Here is the link:https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658124 Thanks, Justin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2.png Type: image/png Size: 33561 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 24619 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sergio91pt at gmail.com Sat Sep 3 17:31:03 2011 From: sergio91pt at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?B?U+lyZ2lv?=) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 18:31:03 +0100 Subject: I cannot use VNC with vinagre In-Reply-To: <4E6251C4.6020903@163.com> References: <4E6251C4.6020903@163.com> Message-ID: Hi Justin Wu, Thanks for reporting this bug, however we use launchpad.net to track bugs, not this mailing list. Please repost this to launchpad by executing ubuntu-bug vinagre in a terminal, for a detailed how-to check https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs Sérgio Faria 2011/9/3 Justin Wu > > Hi, > > This is the steps to reproduce the bug: > > 1. Enter 'vinagre' in the terminal. > 2. Select 'Edit'->'Plug-in'. > > The vnc plug-in is disabled, and if I want to check the vnc plug-in, an error > of missing some .so file will be showed in the terminal. It seems that I have > not installed the vinagre package correctly. But the reinstall 'sudo apt-get > install vinagre' doesn't fix the problem. > > I tried to download the missing .so file, but at the end, I found that I could > not fix the problem. > > So any solution to fix it? > > By the way, my system is Ubuntu 11.04 and it has been upgraded from 10.XX (I > don't remember). Maybe the upgrade causes the issue. > > This is the bug I filed for gnome, but the vinagre developer advises me to > report this bug to ubuntu. Here is the link:https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658124 > > Thanks, > Justin > > > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > From oddvar_kvernevik at yahoo.com Sun Sep 4 07:20:42 2011 From: oddvar_kvernevik at yahoo.com (Oddvar Kvernevik) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 00:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome Message-ID: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w Ubuntu. My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for Unity and Gnome Classic will be used. Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu Community I got to know this option has been removed from Unity. But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? After some investigation I found there were programs installed on my system that refer to Unity. After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic and no more problems about Unity. I report this as a bug because this should not happen during install: First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run Ubuntu whether Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the opportunity to choose during install. After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying traces from Unity like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to Panel" Only after search and remove all programs in my system that seems to be related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome classic desktop. This was highly annoying and  disturbing to me and it should indeed be reported as a bug. Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Sun Sep 4 16:19:28 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 16:19:28 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/HowToTriage=22_by_hggdh2?= Message-ID: <20110904161928.3874.35412@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/HowToTriage" page has been changed by hggdh2: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage?action=diff&rev1=151&rev2=152 Sometimes, you will have to invalidate a bug report. This may be because the problem is not reproducible, or the program was designed to behave a certain way. - There will be a few bug reporters who never get back to you and there is not enough information for the bug to be worked on. You will also want to mark those bugs as Invalid. + /!\ There will be a few bug reporters who never get back to you and there is not enough information for the bug to be worked on. You do '''not''' need to invalidate these bugs -- bugs in incomplete status without a response will be automatically invalidated in 60 days. - The best thing to do here is to politely decline the report while thanking the user for submitting it. There are some useful [[Bugs/Responses]] that you can use in these cases. + For the other (i.e., those not waiting for a response from the reporter), the best thing to do here is to politely decline the report while thanking the user for submitting it. There are some useful [[Bugs/Responses]] that you can use in these cases. There is no need to reject bugs that are '''already''' marked as a duplicate of another bug. Doing so creates bug mail noise as every subscriber of the duplicate bug and the master bug will receive e-mail that the status of the bug changed from something to Invalid. From afccarl1994 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:08:18 2011 From: afccarl1994 at hotmail.com (Carl Ansell) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:08:18 +0100 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: > I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. > I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w Ubuntu. > > My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and > Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. > > This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. > > First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. > During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for Unity > and Gnome Classic will be used. > Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. > > The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. > First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. > That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu Community > I got to know > this option has been removed from Unity. > But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? > After some investigation I found there were programs installed on my > system > that refer to Unity. > > After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic > and no more problems about Unity. > > I report this as a bug because this should not happen during install: > > First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run Ubuntu > whether > Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the > opportunity to > choose during install. > After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying > traces from Unity > like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to Panel" > > Only after search and remove all programs in my system that seems to be > related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome > classic desktop. > > This was highly annoying and disturbing to me > and it should indeed be reported as a bug. > > Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik > > > > > I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still use it as their main interface. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avtomaton at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:18:01 2011 From: avtomaton at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?0JLQuNC60YLQvtGAINCf0L7Qs9GA0LXQsdC90Y/Qug==?=) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:18:01 +0400 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This package is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people using it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is one and only option? 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell пишет: > On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: >> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. >> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w Ubuntu. >> >> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and >> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. >> >> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. >> >> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. >> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for Unity >> and Gnome Classic will be used. >> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. >> >> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. >> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. >> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu Community >> I got to know >> this option has been removed from Unity. >> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? >> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on my >> system >> that refer to Unity. >> >> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic >> and no more problems about Unity. >> >> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during install: >> >> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run >> Ubuntu whether >> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the >> opportunity to >> choose during install. >> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying >> traces from Unity >> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to >> Panel" >> >> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that seems to be >> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome >> classic desktop. >> >> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me >> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. >> >> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik >> >> >> >> >> > I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based > distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving away > from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 desktop as > an option, but there are many distributions that still use it as their > main interface. > > -- С уважением, Виктор Погребняк avtomaton at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afccarl1994 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:25:54 2011 From: afccarl1994 at hotmail.com (Carl Ansell) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:25:54 +0100 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> Message-ID: The next release (Oneiric) uses Unity 2D as a fallback option and Unity 3D by default. So in the current preview releases for Oneiric (which I am using) GNOME 2 is not installed, and Unity is based on GNOME 3 rather than GNOME 2. On 04/09/11 19:18, ?????? ????????? wrote: > It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This package > is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people using > it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is one and > only option? > > 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell ?????: >> On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: >>> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. >>> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w Ubuntu. >>> >>> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and >>> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. >>> >>> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. >>> >>> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. >>> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for >>> Unity >>> and Gnome Classic will be used. >>> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. >>> >>> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. >>> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. >>> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu >>> Community I got to know >>> this option has been removed from Unity. >>> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? >>> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on my >>> system >>> that refer to Unity. >>> >>> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic >>> and no more problems about Unity. >>> >>> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during install: >>> >>> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run >>> Ubuntu whether >>> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the >>> opportunity to >>> choose during install. >>> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying >>> traces from Unity >>> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to >>> Panel" >>> >>> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that seems to be >>> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome >>> classic desktop. >>> >>> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me >>> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. >>> >>> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based >> distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving >> away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 >> desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still use >> it as their main interface. >> >> > > -- > ? ?????????, ?????? ????????? > avtomaton at gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avtomaton at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:37:13 2011 From: avtomaton at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?0JLQuNC60YLQvtGAINCf0L7Qs9GA0LXQsdC90Y/Qug==?=) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:37:13 +0400 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> Now you mean that I can't use GNOME 2 as a desktop in Oneiric at all? In fact, ubuntu became OS with hardly integrated desktop. It's a great pity, I think. 04.09.2011 22:25, Carl Ansell пишет: > The next release (Oneiric) uses Unity 2D as a fallback option and > Unity 3D by default. So in the current preview releases for Oneiric > (which I am using) GNOME 2 is not installed, and Unity is based on > GNOME 3 rather than GNOME 2. > > On 04/09/11 19:18, Виктор Погребняк wrote: >> It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This package >> is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people >> using it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is >> one and only option? >> >> 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell пишет: >>> On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: >>>> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. >>>> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w >>>> Ubuntu. >>>> >>>> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and >>>> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. >>>> >>>> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. >>>> >>>> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. >>>> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for >>>> Unity >>>> and Gnome Classic will be used. >>>> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. >>>> >>>> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. >>>> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. >>>> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu >>>> Community I got to know >>>> this option has been removed from Unity. >>>> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? >>>> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on >>>> my system >>>> that refer to Unity. >>>> >>>> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic >>>> and no more problems about Unity. >>>> >>>> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during install: >>>> >>>> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run >>>> Ubuntu whether >>>> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the >>>> opportunity to >>>> choose during install. >>>> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying >>>> traces from Unity >>>> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to >>>> Panel" >>>> >>>> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that seems to be >>>> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome >>>> classic desktop. >>>> >>>> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me >>>> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. >>>> >>>> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based >>> distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving >>> away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 >>> desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still >>> use it as their main interface. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> С уважением, Виктор Погребняк >> avtomaton at gmail.com >> >> > > > -- С уважением, Виктор Погребняк avtomaton at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coalwater5 at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:47:09 2011 From: coalwater5 at gmail.com (Mohammad AbuShady) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:47:09 +0400 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> Message-ID: it's just not in installed by default but you can still install it if you want On Sep 4, 2011 10:38 PM, "Виктор Погребняк" wrote: > Now you mean that I can't use GNOME 2 as a desktop in Oneiric at all? In > fact, ubuntu became OS with hardly integrated desktop. It's a great > pity, I think. > > 04.09.2011 22:25, Carl Ansell пишет: >> The next release (Oneiric) uses Unity 2D as a fallback option and >> Unity 3D by default. So in the current preview releases for Oneiric >> (which I am using) GNOME 2 is not installed, and Unity is based on >> GNOME 3 rather than GNOME 2. >> >> On 04/09/11 19:18, Виктор Погребняк wrote: >>> It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This package >>> is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people >>> using it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is >>> one and only option? >>> >>> 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell пишет: >>>> On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: >>>>> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. >>>>> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w >>>>> Ubuntu. >>>>> >>>>> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and >>>>> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. >>>>> >>>>> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. >>>>> >>>>> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. >>>>> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for >>>>> Unity >>>>> and Gnome Classic will be used. >>>>> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. >>>>> >>>>> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. >>>>> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. >>>>> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu >>>>> Community I got to know >>>>> this option has been removed from Unity. >>>>> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? >>>>> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on >>>>> my system >>>>> that refer to Unity. >>>>> >>>>> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic >>>>> and no more problems about Unity. >>>>> >>>>> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during install: >>>>> >>>>> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run >>>>> Ubuntu whether >>>>> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the >>>>> opportunity to >>>>> choose during install. >>>>> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying >>>>> traces from Unity >>>>> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to >>>>> Panel" >>>>> >>>>> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that seems to be >>>>> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome >>>>> classic desktop. >>>>> >>>>> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me >>>>> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. >>>>> >>>>> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based >>>> distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving >>>> away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 >>>> desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still >>>> use it as their main interface. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> С уважением, Виктор Погребняк >>> avtomaton at gmail.com >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- > С уважением, Виктор Погребняк > avtomaton at gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coalwater5 at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:54:56 2011 From: coalwater5 at gmail.com (Mohammad AbuShady) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 22:54:56 +0400 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> Message-ID: Gnome classic is installable on oneiric isn't it? On Sep 4, 2011 10:47 PM, "Mohammad AbuShady" wrote: > it's just not in installed by default but you can still install it if you > want > On Sep 4, 2011 10:38 PM, "Виктор Погребняк" wrote: >> Now you mean that I can't use GNOME 2 as a desktop in Oneiric at all? In >> fact, ubuntu became OS with hardly integrated desktop. It's a great >> pity, I think. >> >> 04.09.2011 22:25, Carl Ansell пишет: >>> The next release (Oneiric) uses Unity 2D as a fallback option and >>> Unity 3D by default. So in the current preview releases for Oneiric >>> (which I am using) GNOME 2 is not installed, and Unity is based on >>> GNOME 3 rather than GNOME 2. >>> >>> On 04/09/11 19:18, Виктор Погребняк wrote: >>>> It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This package >>>> is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people >>>> using it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is >>>> one and only option? >>>> >>>> 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell пишет: >>>>> On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: >>>>>> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. >>>>>> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w >>>>>> Ubuntu. >>>>>> >>>>>> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and >>>>>> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. >>>>>> >>>>>> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. >>>>>> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for >>>>>> Unity >>>>>> and Gnome Classic will be used. >>>>>> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. >>>>>> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. >>>>>> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu >>>>>> Community I got to know >>>>>> this option has been removed from Unity. >>>>>> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? >>>>>> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on >>>>>> my system >>>>>> that refer to Unity. >>>>>> >>>>>> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic >>>>>> and no more problems about Unity. >>>>>> >>>>>> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during install: >>>>>> >>>>>> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run >>>>>> Ubuntu whether >>>>>> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the >>>>>> opportunity to >>>>>> choose during install. >>>>>> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying >>>>>> traces from Unity >>>>>> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to >>>>>> Panel" >>>>>> >>>>>> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that seems to > be >>>>>> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome >>>>>> classic desktop. >>>>>> >>>>>> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me >>>>>> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based >>>>> distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving >>>>> away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 >>>>> desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still >>>>> use it as their main interface. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> С уважением, Виктор Погребняк >>>> avtomaton at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> С уважением, Виктор Погребняк >> avtomaton at gmail.com >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afccarl1994 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 18:57:32 2011 From: afccarl1994 at hotmail.com (Carl Ansell) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:57:32 +0100 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> Message-ID: As said below, you can install it but it isn't there by default and will not be receiving any 'canonical love' as it were. This is why I suggested Mint, it is based on Ubuntu but uses GNOME 2 by default. On 04/09/11 19:47, Mohammad AbuShady wrote: > > it's just not in installed by default but you can still install it if > you want > > On Sep 4, 2011 10:38 PM, "?????? ?????????" > wrote: > > Now you mean that I can't use GNOME 2 as a desktop in Oneiric at > all? In > > fact, ubuntu became OS with hardly integrated desktop. It's a great > > pity, I think. > > > > 04.09.2011 22:25, Carl Ansell ?????: > >> The next release (Oneiric) uses Unity 2D as a fallback option and > >> Unity 3D by default. So in the current preview releases for Oneiric > >> (which I am using) GNOME 2 is not installed, and Unity is based on > >> GNOME 3 rather than GNOME 2. > >> > >> On 04/09/11 19:18, ?????? ????????? wrote: > >>> It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This package > >>> is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people > >>> using it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is > >>> one and only option? > >>> > >>> 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell ?????: > >>>> On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: > >>>>> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. > >>>>> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w > >>>>> Ubuntu. > >>>>> > >>>>> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and > >>>>> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. > >>>>> > >>>>> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. > >>>>> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for > >>>>> Unity > >>>>> and Gnome Classic will be used. > >>>>> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. > >>>>> > >>>>> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. > >>>>> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. > >>>>> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu > >>>>> Community I got to know > >>>>> this option has been removed from Unity. > >>>>> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? > >>>>> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on > >>>>> my system > >>>>> that refer to Unity. > >>>>> > >>>>> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic > >>>>> and no more problems about Unity. > >>>>> > >>>>> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during > install: > >>>>> > >>>>> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run > >>>>> Ubuntu whether > >>>>> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the > >>>>> opportunity to > >>>>> choose during install. > >>>>> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying > >>>>> traces from Unity > >>>>> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to > >>>>> Panel" > >>>>> > >>>>> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that > seems to be > >>>>> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome > >>>>> classic desktop. > >>>>> > >>>>> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me > >>>>> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based > >>>> distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving > >>>> away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 > >>>> desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still > >>>> use it as their main interface. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> ? ?????????, ?????? ????????? > >>> avtomaton at gmail.com > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > ? ?????????, ?????? ????????? > > avtomaton at gmail.com > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avtomaton at gmail.com Sun Sep 4 19:01:17 2011 From: avtomaton at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?0JLQuNC60YLQvtGAINCf0L7Qs9GA0LXQsdC90Y/Qug==?=) Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 23:01:17 +0400 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E63CAFD.5050005@gmail.com> Carl Ansell recommeded us to install another distrib, fully based on GNOME2 (such as Mint). Maybe he had strong reasons for this, I don't know. Now I use ubuntu natty and don't know about oneiric behaviour. 04.09.2011 22:54, Mohammad AbuShady пишет: > > Gnome classic is installable on oneiric isn't it? > > On Sep 4, 2011 10:47 PM, "Mohammad AbuShady" > wrote: > > it's just not in installed by default but you can still install it > if you > > want > > On Sep 4, 2011 10:38 PM, "Виктор Погребняк" > wrote: > >> Now you mean that I can't use GNOME 2 as a desktop in Oneiric at > all? In > >> fact, ubuntu became OS with hardly integrated desktop. It's a great > >> pity, I think. > >> > >> 04.09.2011 22:25, Carl Ansell пишет: > >>> The next release (Oneiric) uses Unity 2D as a fallback option and > >>> Unity 3D by default. So in the current preview releases for Oneiric > >>> (which I am using) GNOME 2 is not installed, and Unity is based on > >>> GNOME 3 rather than GNOME 2. > >>> > >>> On 04/09/11 19:18, Виктор Погребняк wrote: > >>>> It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This package > >>>> is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people > >>>> using it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is > >>>> one and only option? > >>>> > >>>> 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell пишет: > >>>>> On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: > >>>>>> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly unexpected. > >>>>>> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w > >>>>>> Ubuntu. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and > >>>>>> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. > >>>>>> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good enough for > >>>>>> Unity > >>>>>> and Gnome Classic will be used. > >>>>>> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am used to. > >>>>>> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. > >>>>>> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu > >>>>>> Community I got to know > >>>>>> this option has been removed from Unity. > >>>>>> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? > >>>>>> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on > >>>>>> my system > >>>>>> that refer to Unity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic > >>>>>> and no more problems about Unity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during > install: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run > >>>>>> Ubuntu whether > >>>>>> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the > >>>>>> opportunity to > >>>>>> choose during install. > >>>>>> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying > >>>>>> traces from Unity > >>>>>> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications "Add to > >>>>>> Panel" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that > seems to > > be > >>>>>> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome > >>>>>> classic desktop. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me > >>>>>> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based > >>>>> distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving > >>>>> away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 > >>>>> desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still > >>>>> use it as their main interface. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> С уважением, Виктор Погребняк > >>>> avtomaton at gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> С уважением, Виктор Погребняк > >> avtomaton at gmail.com > >> -- С уважением, Виктор Погребняк avtomaton at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From afccarl1994 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 4 19:12:40 2011 From: afccarl1994 at hotmail.com (Carl Ansell) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 20:12:40 +0100 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: <4E63CAFD.5050005@gmail.com> References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> <4E63CAFD.5050005@gmail.com> Message-ID: As far as I know it is, but it would need to install all of the GNOME 2 and GTK 2 dependencies and as it is not installed by default there may be bugs in it that would probably take a community effort to fix. There has been a fork of GNOME 2 intended on fixing bugs and maybe adding features in the future, and is called Mate. However, I don't know if this can be installed in Oneiric or what its current development state is. You could perhaps install Oneiric beta 1 alongside Natty and try to get GNOME 2 working, that way you can see what happens before attempting to update the whole system. I recommeded another distro as it would remove the need to install GNOME 2 (which I think would break Unity and probably other parts of Ubuntu) and you would know that the interface is officially supported with updates and fixes where necessary. On 04/09/11 20:01, ?????? ????????? wrote: > Carl Ansell recommeded us to install another distrib, fully based on > GNOME2 (such as Mint). Maybe he had strong reasons for this, I don't > know. Now I use ubuntu natty and don't know about oneiric behaviour. > > 04.09.2011 22:54, Mohammad AbuShady ?????: >> >> Gnome classic is installable on oneiric isn't it? >> >> On Sep 4, 2011 10:47 PM, "Mohammad AbuShady" > > wrote: >> > it's just not in installed by default but you can still install it >> if you >> > want >> > On Sep 4, 2011 10:38 PM, "?????? ?????????" > > wrote: >> >> Now you mean that I can't use GNOME 2 as a desktop in Oneiric at >> all? In >> >> fact, ubuntu became OS with hardly integrated desktop. It's a great >> >> pity, I think. >> >> >> >> 04.09.2011 22:25, Carl Ansell ?????: >> >>> The next release (Oneiric) uses Unity 2D as a fallback option and >> >>> Unity 3D by default. So in the current preview releases for Oneiric >> >>> (which I am using) GNOME 2 is not installed, and Unity is based on >> >>> GNOME 3 rather than GNOME 2. >> >>> >> >>> On 04/09/11 19:18, ?????? ????????? wrote: >> >>>> It's clear that Ubuntu is moving away from GNOME 2? Why? This >> package >> >>>> is still available even in new release, and it's a lot of people >> >>>> using it. Now you mean that if unity is main desktop option, it is >> >>>> one and only option? >> >>>> >> >>>> 04.09.2011 22:08, Carl Ansell ?????: >> >>>>> On 04/09/11 08:20, Oddvar Kvernevik wrote: >> >>>>>> I report this as a bug because what happened was highly >> unexpected. >> >>>>>> I have Used Ubuntu with Classic Gnome desktop in all the years w >> >>>>>> Ubuntu. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> My computer has Pentium D processor, 80GB harddisk and >> >>>>>> Nvidia graphic card with 2GB Ram. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> This is what happened when I first time used the Ubuntu 11.04. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> First I burned the Ubuntu 11.04 CD. >> >>>>>> During boot I got message saying my Hardware is not good >> enough for >> >>>>>> Unity >> >>>>>> and Gnome Classic will be used. >> >>>>>> Thats all fine because I prefer Gnome Classic over Unity. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The problem started when I wanted to use my Ubuntu as I am >> used to. >> >>>>>> First I waned to Add to Panel; Dictionary Lookup. >> >>>>>> That choice suddenly did not exist. After asking the Ubuntu >> >>>>>> Community I got to know >> >>>>>> this option has been removed from Unity. >> >>>>>> But I did not use Unity, only classic Gnome desktop? >> >>>>>> After some investigation I found there were programs installed on >> >>>>>> my system >> >>>>>> that refer to Unity. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> After removing those programs I am back to Gnome Classic >> >>>>>> and no more problems about Unity. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I report this as a bug because this should not happen during >> install: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> First my 2-3 years old Pentium D computer is not too old to run >> >>>>>> Ubuntu whether >> >>>>>> Unity or Classic. I personal prefer Classic but I never got the >> >>>>>> opportunity to >> >>>>>> choose during install. >> >>>>>> After classic installed, it seemed there where still some annoying >> >>>>>> traces from Unity >> >>>>>> like Dictionary Lookup is not on the list over applications >> "Add to >> >>>>>> Panel" >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Only after search and remove all programs in my system that >> seems to >> > be >> >>>>>> related to Unity did my system function as a normal Ubuntu Gnome >> >>>>>> classic desktop. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> This was highly annoying and disturbing to me >> >>>>>> and it should indeed be reported as a bug. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Regards from Oddvar Kvernevik >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> I would recommend that you try one of the many GNOME 2 Ubuntu based >> >>>>> distros out there such as Mint. It is clear that Ubuntu is moving >> >>>>> away from GNOME 2 and Oneiric will not even provide the GNOME 2 >> >>>>> desktop as an option, but there are many distributions that still >> >>>>> use it as their main interface. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> ? ?????????, ?????? ????????? >> >>>> avtomaton at gmail.com >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ? ?????????, ?????? ????????? >> >> avtomaton at gmail.com >> >> > > -- > ? ?????????, ?????? ????????? > avtomaton at gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jordon at envygeeks.com Mon Sep 5 00:34:00 2011 From: jordon at envygeeks.com (Jordon Bedwell) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 19:34:00 -0500 Subject: Error with Unity and classic Gnome In-Reply-To: References: <1315120842.11618.YahooMailClassic@web111512.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E63C0D9.1090400@gmail.com> <4E63C559.1040709@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110905003400.GA2527@envygeeks> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:54:56PM +0400, Mohammad AbuShady wrote: > Gnome classic is installable on oneiric isn't it? Please move this discussion to ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com because this list is not for bug reporting or user aided support, this is simply a list for people who handle bugs. While I am here though, I'll also add that I believe Gnome-Classic is apart of Unity I could not find a specific package that mentions it on my system upon apt grep. From noreply at ubuntu.com Tue Sep 6 12:59:31 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:59:31 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/HowToTriage=22_by_hggdh2?= Message-ID: <20110906125931.10763.51990@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/HowToTriage" page has been changed by hggdh2: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage?action=diff&rev1=152&rev2=153 Comment: really. Incomplete-wthout-a-response does not need any action There is no need to reject bugs that are '''already''' marked as a duplicate of another bug. Doing so creates bug mail noise as every subscriber of the duplicate bug and the master bug will receive e-mail that the status of the bug changed from something to Invalid. - <> - <> ||{{attachment:importance.png}}||'''Status and Importance'''|| From noreply at ubuntu.com Tue Sep 6 14:27:51 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:27:51 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/HowToTriage=22_by_brian-mur?= =?utf-8?q?ray?= Message-ID: <20110906142751.2940.42453@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/HowToTriage" page has been changed by brian-murray: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage?action=diff&rev1=153&rev2=154 Sometimes, you will have to invalidate a bug report. This may be because the problem is not reproducible, or the program was designed to behave a certain way. - /!\ There will be a few bug reporters who never get back to you and there is not enough information for the bug to be worked on. You do '''not''' need to invalidate these bugs -- bugs in incomplete status without a response will be automatically invalidated in 60 days. + /!\ There will be a few bug reporters who never get back to you and there is not enough information for the bug to be worked on. You do '''not''' need to invalidate these bugs -- bugs in incomplete status without a response will be automatically expired in 60 days. For the other (i.e., those not waiting for a response from the reporter), the best thing to do here is to politely decline the report while thanking the user for submitting it. There are some useful [[Bugs/Responses]] that you can use in these cases. From kamus at ubuntu.com Tue Sep 6 15:21:26 2011 From: kamus at ubuntu.com (Kamus) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:21:26 -0400 Subject: Announcing the Next Ubuntu Bug Day! - Thursday 08 September 2011 Message-ID: Fellow Ubuntu Triagers! This week's Bug Day target is *drum roll please* Bugs without a package! * 50 New bugs need a hug * 50 Incomplete bugs need a status check * 50 Confirmed bugs need a review Bookmark it, add it to your calendars, turn over those egg-timers! * Thursday 8th September 2011 * https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20110908 Are you looking for a way to start giving some love back to your adorable Ubuntu Project? Did you ever wonder what Triage is? Want to learn about that? This is a perfect time!, Everybody can help in a Bug Day! open your IRC Client and go to #ubuntu-bugs (FreeNode) the BugSquad will be happy to help you to start contributing! Wanna be famous? Is easy! remember to use 5-A-day so if you do a good work your name could be listed at the top 5-A-Day Contributors in the Ubuntu Hall of Fame page! We are always looking for new tasks or ideas for the Bug Days, if you have one add it to the Planning page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/Planning If you're new to all this, head to http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs Have a nice day, Kamus (from Bugsquad) -------------------- Victor Vargas B Santiago, Chile. From noreply at ubuntu.com Tue Sep 6 15:05:18 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:05:18 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Events=22_by_pvillavi?= Message-ID: <20110906150518.19045.95874@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Events" page has been changed by pvillavi: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Events?action=diff&rev1=257&rev2=258 || '''Name''' || '''Tag used''' || ## StartHugDayParsing + || [[UbuntuBugDay/20110908| Bugs without a package]] || hugday-20110908 || || [[UbuntuBugDay/20110728| Banshee]] || hugday-20110728 || || [[UbuntuBugDay/20110721| Banshee]] || hugday-20110721 || || [[UbuntuBugDay/20110714| GNOME Control Center]] || hugday-20110714 || From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 8 19:15:17 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:15:17 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Responses=22_by_hggdh2?= Message-ID: <20110908191517.24072.23456@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Responses" page has been changed by hggdh2: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses?action=diff&rev1=335&rev2=336 Comment: adjusted "incomplete" explanation for automatic expiry }}} == Incomplete bugs without a response from submitter == - In the event that a bug has been in the "Incomplete" state for more than 4 weeks, meaning it has not received a response to a request for more information, please send a gentle reminder with something like: + Some bugs are never responded to by the submitter (also called "original poster", or "OP"). These bugs will be automatically expired by Launchpad in 60 days, counted from the day it was set incomplete. There is no need to act on them (and, actually, changing the bug will restart the expiry period). + Note that this applies for the Ubuntu project (i.e., those bug tasks that have "(Ubuntu)" in their name). Other projects may, or may not, have automatic incomplete bug expiration set. - ||We'd like to figure out what's causing this bug for you, but we haven't heard back from you in a while. Could you please provide the requested information? Thanks!|| - - If, after an additional 2 weeks, the reporter still hasn't responded __and there is no way someone can work with the bug__, the bug status should be changed to "Invalid" with a comment similar to: - - || We are closing this bug report because it lacks the information we need to investigate the problem, as described in the previous comments. Please reopen it if you can give us the missing information, and don't hesitate to submit bug reports in the future. To reopen the bug report you can click on the current status, under the Status column, and change the Status back to "New". Thanks again!|| == Bugs without a package == Sometimes bugs will be reported just using the "Ubuntu" package. This is not the best place for the bug though and we should encourage bug reporters to report the bug against the correct package by pointing them at some documentation. Keep in mind PKGNAME is a placeholder. From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 8 19:20:11 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:20:11 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Responses=22_by_hggdh2?= Message-ID: <20110908192011.24060.18440@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Responses" page has been changed by hggdh2: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Responses?action=diff&rev1=336&rev2=337 == Incomplete bugs without a response from submitter == Some bugs are never responded to by the submitter (also called "original poster", or "OP"). These bugs will be automatically expired by Launchpad in 60 days, counted from the day it was set incomplete. There is no need to act on them (and, actually, changing the bug will restart the expiry period). - Note that this applies for the Ubuntu project (i.e., those bug tasks that have "(Ubuntu)" in their name). Other projects may, or may not, have automatic incomplete bug expiration set. == Bugs without a package == From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 8 19:38:08 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:38:08 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?New_attachment_added_to_page_Bugs/HowToTriage/Charts_on_Ubuntu_?= =?utf-8?q?Wiki?= Message-ID: <20110908193808.32146.6514@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page "Bugs/HowToTriage/Charts" for change notification. An attachment has been added to that page by hggdh2. Following detailed information is available: Attachment name: from-incomplete.jpg Attachment size: 48002 Attachment link: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage/Charts?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=from-incomplete.jpg Page link: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/HowToTriage/Charts From smoser at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 12 18:32:50 2011 From: smoser at ubuntu.com (Scott Moser) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:32:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible Message-ID: Hi, I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should not report the bug. The URL above says specifically: File a bug report You should only file a bug report when: * You can repeat the problem I don't think that text is correct, and honestly was surprised that someone would read it literally. Because an issue is not trivially reproducible does not mean that it should not be reported. The statement above gives a different impression. Can we get that text clarified? Personally I'm interested in issues that are not 100% reproducible. Feel free to read the thread at https://groups.google.com/group/ec2ubuntu/browse_frm/thread/57ff20c6370f7bb9 if you're interested in more information. From micahg at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 12 18:57:01 2011 From: micahg at ubuntu.com (Micah Gersten) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 13:57:01 -0500 Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E6E55FD.2030804@ubuntu.com> On 09/12/2011 01:32 PM, Scott Moser wrote: > Hi, > I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem > by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the > impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should > not report the bug. > > The URL above says specifically: > File a bug report > You should only file a bug report when: > * You can repeat the problem > > I don't think that text is correct, and honestly was surprised that someone > would read it literally. Because an issue is not trivially reproducible > does not mean that it should not be reported. The statement above gives a > different impression. > > Can we get that text clarified? Personally I'm interested in issues that > are not 100% reproducible. > > > Feel free to read the thread at > https://groups.google.com/group/ec2ubuntu/browse_frm/thread/57ff20c6370f7bb9 > if you're interested in more information. > > The problem is without a proper reproducer, it's hard to fix. As seb128 continuously points out, we have no shortage of bugs to fix. While I believe that these issues could be beneficial to some, if they start as threads on a user list/answers.lp/askubuntu, someone else might be able to reproduce it consistently and then file a proper bug. Thanks, Micah From brian at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 12 19:01:38 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:01:38 -0700 Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110912190138.GF3395@murraytwins.com> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:50PM -0400, Scott Moser wrote: > Hi, > I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem > by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the > impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should > not report the bug. I've never seen that page before. We generally direct people to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs which makes no mention of reproducibility. > The URL above says specifically: > File a bug report > You should only file a bug report when: > * You can repeat the problem > > I don't think that text is correct, and honestly was surprised that someone > would read it literally. Because an issue is not trivially reproducible > does not mean that it should not be reported. The statement above gives a > different impression. > > Can we get that text clarified? Personally I'm interested in issues that > are not 100% reproducible. Sure, I'm happy to remove that text from that page but I'm more curious about where this person heard about that page. -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From gwendal.lebihan.dev at gmail.com Mon Sep 12 19:12:23 2011 From: gwendal.lebihan.dev at gmail.com (Gwendal Le Bihan) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:12:23 +0200 Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: <20110912190138.GF3395@murraytwins.com> References: <20110912190138.GF3395@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: <4E6E5997.4020009@gmail.com> On 09/12/2011 09:01 PM, Brian Murray wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:50PM -0400, Scott Moser wrote: >> Hi, >> I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem >> by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the >> impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should >> not report the bug. > I've never seen that page before. We generally direct people to > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs which makes no mention > of reproducibility. > There's a very similar instruction on that page. """ Launchpad will then ask you for further information. It's important that you specify three things: 1. What you expected to happen 2. What actually happened 3. *The minimal series of steps necessary to make it happen, where step 1 is "start the program" * """ >> The URL above says specifically: >> File a bug report >> You should only file a bug report when: >> * You can repeat the problem >> >> I don't think that text is correct, and honestly was surprised that someone >> would read it literally. Because an issue is not trivially reproducible >> does not mean that it should not be reported. The statement above gives a >> different impression. >> >> Can we get that text clarified? Personally I'm interested in issues that >> are not 100% reproducible. > Sure, I'm happy to remove that text from that page but I'm more curious > about where this person heard about that page. > > -- > Brian Murray > Ubuntu Bug Master > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hggdh2 at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 12 19:53:12 2011 From: hggdh2 at ubuntu.com (C de-Avillez) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:53:12 -0500 Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: <4E6E5997.4020009@gmail.com> References: <20110912190138.GF3395@murraytwins.com> <4E6E5997.4020009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E6E6328.6090900@ubuntu.com> On 12-09-2011 14:12, Gwendal Le Bihan wrote: > On 09/12/2011 09:01 PM, Brian Murray wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:50PM -0400, Scott Moser wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem >>> by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the >>> impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should >>> not report the bug. >> I've never seen that page before. We generally direct people to >> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs which makes no mention >> of reproducibility. >> > There's a very similar instruction on that page. > """ > Launchpad will then ask you for further information. It's important that you specify three things: > > 1. > What you expected to happen > 2. > What actually happened > 3. > *The minimal series of steps necessary to make it happen, where step 1 is "start the program" > * > > Not anymore. Now it says "If possible, a minimal series ...". Opening bugs, and triaging, should be done with some common sense. If there is an instruction that seems (or is!) incorrect, we should adjust. But, for us to eventually correct what is wrong, or capable of creating confusion, we first need to know there is a (real or perceived) problem. BTW, anyone can edit and correct. If someone is unsure, all needed is to contact us either on this mailing list, or on the #ubuntu-bugs channel on IRC chat.freenode.net. Cheers, ..C.. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 900 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From webmaster at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 12 19:47:38 2011 From: webmaster at ubuntu.com (Help Ubuntu) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:47:38 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BCommunity_Ubuntu_Documentation=5D_Update_of_=22ReportingBugs?= =?utf-8?q?=22_by_hggdh2?= Message-ID: <20110912194738.3759.72943@jostaberry.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Community Ubuntu Documentation" for change notification. The "ReportingBugs" page has been changed by hggdh2: http://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs?action=diff&rev1=159&rev2=160 1. What you expected to happen 1. What actually happened - 1. The minimal series of steps necessary to make it happen, where step 1 is "start the program" + 1. If possible, a minimal series of steps necessary to make it happen, where step 1 is "start the program" Fill in the description field with as much information as you can, including the release of Ubuntu you are using and steps for someone else to recreate the bug. It is better to have too much information in the description than not enough. From smoser at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 12 23:52:06 2011 From: smoser at ubuntu.com (Scott Moser) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: <20110912190138.GF3395@murraytwins.com> References: <20110912190138.GF3395@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Brian Murray wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:50PM -0400, Scott Moser wrote: > > Hi, > > I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem > > by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the > > impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should > > not report the bug. > > I've never seen that page before. We generally direct people to > https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs which makes no mention > of reproducibility. > > > The URL above says specifically: > > File a bug report > > You should only file a bug report when: > > * You can repeat the problem > Sure, I'm happy to remove that text from that page but I'm more curious > about where this person heard about that page. I don't know where they found it. I asked where they'd gotten the impression that they should not open bugs for things that were not reproducible and he gave me that link. As Carlos mentioned, other docs seem to imply that too. > > -- > Brian Murray > Ubuntu Bug Master > From smoser at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 12 23:50:37 2011 From: smoser at ubuntu.com (Scott Moser) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: <4E6E55FD.2030804@ubuntu.com> References: <4E6E55FD.2030804@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Micah Gersten wrote: > On 09/12/2011 01:32 PM, Scott Moser wrote: > > Hi, > > I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem > > by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the > > impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should > > not report the bug. > > > > The URL above says specifically: > > File a bug report > > You should only file a bug report when: > > * You can repeat the problem > > > > I don't think that text is correct, and honestly was surprised that someone > > would read it literally. Because an issue is not trivially reproducible > > does not mean that it should not be reported. The statement above gives a > > different impression. > > > > Can we get that text clarified? Personally I'm interested in issues that > > are not 100% reproducible. > > > > > > Feel free to read the thread at > > https://groups.google.com/group/ec2ubuntu/browse_frm/thread/57ff20c6370f7bb9 > > if you're interested in more information. > > > > > The problem is without a proper reproducer, it's hard to fix. As seb128 > continuously points out, we have no shortage of bugs to fix. While I > believe that these issues could be beneficial to some, if they start as > threads on a user list/answers.lp/askubuntu, someone else might be able > to reproduce it consistently and then file a proper bug. I completely disagree with this. a.) we don't benefit from having less bugs, no one wins when someone doesn't report an issue. b.) While its fine for someone to raise issues on a list/answers.lp/askubuntu, its much less likely that a developer is going to see it. If you open a bug on launchpad with the same text you're going to post to an email list, and then say "Hey, I just opened this bug, anyone else able to help?" They we're better off all around. Scott From micahg at ubuntu.com Tue Sep 13 01:03:31 2011 From: micahg at ubuntu.com (Micah Gersten) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:03:31 -0500 Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: References: <4E6E55FD.2030804@ubuntu.com> Message-ID: <4E6EABE3.5090504@ubuntu.com> On 09/12/2011 06:50 PM, Scott Moser wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Micah Gersten wrote: > >> On 09/12/2011 01:32 PM, Scott Moser wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem >>> by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the >>> impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should >>> not report the bug. >>> >>> The URL above says specifically: >>> File a bug report >>> You should only file a bug report when: >>> * You can repeat the problem >>> >>> I don't think that text is correct, and honestly was surprised that someone >>> would read it literally. Because an issue is not trivially reproducible >>> does not mean that it should not be reported. The statement above gives a >>> different impression. >>> >>> Can we get that text clarified? Personally I'm interested in issues that >>> are not 100% reproducible. >>> >>> >>> Feel free to read the thread at >>> https://groups.google.com/group/ec2ubuntu/browse_frm/thread/57ff20c6370f7bb9 >>> if you're interested in more information. >>> >>> >> The problem is without a proper reproducer, it's hard to fix. As seb128 >> continuously points out, we have no shortage of bugs to fix. While I >> believe that these issues could be beneficial to some, if they start as >> threads on a user list/answers.lp/askubuntu, someone else might be able >> to reproduce it consistently and then file a proper bug. > > I completely disagree with this. > a.) we don't benefit from having less bugs, no one wins when someone > doesn't report an issue. > b.) While its fine for someone to raise issues on a > list/answers.lp/askubuntu, its much less likely that a developer is going > to see it. If you open a bug on launchpad with the same text you're going > to post to an email list, and then say "Hey, I just opened this bug, > anyone else able to help?" They we're better off all around. > > > Scott I didn't say too many bugs is a reason not to report them. I agree with you on that point. I do disagree with encouraging people to file incomplete bugs where there are other forums that can better serve that purpose. Maybe we can add some documentation to this effect that people can file issues that are incomplete elsewhere with the goal that once it's fleshed out, a proper bug can be filed. Micah From ubuntu at treblig.org Tue Sep 13 08:32:58 2011 From: ubuntu at treblig.org (Dr. David Alan Gilbert) Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:32:58 +0100 Subject: reporting bugs that are not easily reproducible In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110913083258.GA13475@gallifrey> * Scott Moser (smoser at ubuntu.com) wrote: > Hi, > I have been pointed at http://www.ubuntu.com/community/report-problem > by a user who had a legitimate issue with Ubuntu, but was under the > impression that because the issue was not easily reproducible they should > not report the bug. > > The URL above says specifically: > File a bug report > You should only file a bug report when: > * You can repeat the problem > > I don't think that text is correct, and honestly was surprised that someone > would read it literally. Because an issue is not trivially reproducible > does not mean that it should not be reported. The statement above gives a > different impression. > > Can we get that text clarified? Personally I'm interested in issues that > are not 100% reproducible. I agree; a non-reproducable bug for 1 person is frankly very unlikely to get fixed; if 200 people all have the same bug that they can't reproduce easily then it can be just as serious as one that has already got a well defined series of steps to reproduce. If most of those 200 feel they can't file it because they haven't got that series of steps then it just never gets fixed. Once filed a triager might be able to suggest steps to narrow it down, places to look when it does fail and then help produce that series of steps. Dave -- -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code ------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux | Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/ From brian at ubuntu.com Wed Sep 14 17:51:24 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:51:24 -0700 Subject: New recommended bug tag: testcase Message-ID: <20110914175124.GI3395@murraytwins.com> I've made the bug tag 'testcase' an official bug tag and added it to the bug tags wiki page. This tag should be used when we find a bug with steps to recreate it in the bug description - or if we find the steps to recreate it in the comments and then copy them to the description! Its my hope that this tag will allow us to find very high quality bugs. Thanks! -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Wed Sep 14 17:44:44 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:44:44 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Tags=22_by_brian-murray?= Message-ID: <20110914174444.23929.32428@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Tags" page has been changed by brian-murray: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Tags?action=diff&rev1=184&rev2=185 || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=upgrade-software-version|`upgrade-software-version`]] || Bugs that request new software versions - please help reviewing them carefully. || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=work-intensive|`work-intensive`]] || triaging requires intensive work to validate/reproduce || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=dist-upgrade|`dist-upgrade`]] || A bug that was encountered when upgrading between releases of Ubuntu || + || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=testcase|`testcase`]] || A bug which contains a test case - steps to recreate the bug || == Application Specific Tags == ##These tags are pulled from other wiki pages - you can determine which one by looking at the bit after "Include(". So the first set are pulled from the DebuggingNetworkManager wiki page. From vanvugt at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 02:17:38 2011 From: vanvugt at gmail.com (Daniel van Vugt) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:17:38 +0800 Subject: New recommended bug tag: testcase In-Reply-To: <20110914175124.GI3395@murraytwins.com> References: <20110914175124.GI3395@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: <4E716042.5080202@gmail.com> I have been adding "TEST CASE:" in bug descriptions if a good test case is known, as suggested here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure I think this convention should be added to the HowToTriage instructions because it really shouldn't apply to SRU's only. They can be marked with the "testcase" tag also. - Daniel On 15/09/11 01:51, Brian Murray wrote: > I've made the bug tag 'testcase' an official bug tag and added it to the > bug tags wiki page. This tag should be used when we find a bug with > steps to recreate it in the bug description - or if we find the steps to > recreate it in the comments and then copy them to the description! Its > my hope that this tag will allow us to find very high quality bugs. > > Thanks! > -- > Brian Murray > Ubuntu Bug Master > From brian at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 15 14:41:56 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:41:56 -0700 Subject: New recommended bug tag: testcase In-Reply-To: <4E716042.5080202@gmail.com> References: <20110914175124.GI3395@murraytwins.com> <4E716042.5080202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20110915144156.GM3395@murraytwins.com> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:17:38AM +0800, Daniel van Vugt wrote: > I have been adding "TEST CASE:" in bug descriptions if a good test case > is known, as suggested here: > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure That's great, thanks for doing that. The advantage to also using the tag is that we can then search for bugs with testcases. > I think this convention should be added to the HowToTriage instructions > because it really shouldn't apply to SRU's only. Please feel free to update that wiki page with this information. > They can be marked with the "testcase" tag also. > > - Daniel > > > On 15/09/11 01:51, Brian Murray wrote: > > I've made the bug tag 'testcase' an official bug tag and added it to the > > bug tags wiki page. This tag should be used when we find a bug with > > steps to recreate it in the bug description - or if we find the steps to > > recreate it in the comments and then copy them to the description! Its > > my hope that this tag will allow us to find very high quality bugs. > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > Brian Murray > > Ubuntu Bug Master > > > -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nathan1465 at gmail.com Thu Sep 15 14:52:42 2011 From: nathan1465 at gmail.com (nathan nolast) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:52:42 -0400 Subject: New recommended bug tag: testcase In-Reply-To: <20110915144156.GM3395@murraytwins.com> References: <20110914175124.GI3395@murraytwins.com> <4E716042.5080202@gmail.com> <20110915144156.GM3395@murraytwins.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Brian Murray wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:17:38AM +0800, Daniel van Vugt wrote: > > I have been adding "TEST CASE:" in bug descriptions if a good test case > > is known, as suggested here: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Procedure > > That's great, thanks for doing that. The advantage to also using the > tag is that we can then search for bugs with testcases. > > > I think this convention should be added to the HowToTriage instructions > > because it really shouldn't apply to SRU's only. > > Please feel free to update that wiki page with this information. > > > They can be marked with the "testcase" tag also. > > > > - Daniel > > > > > > On 15/09/11 01:51, Brian Murray wrote: > > > I've made the bug tag 'testcase' an official bug tag and added it to > the > > > bug tags wiki page. This tag should be used when we find a bug with > > > steps to recreate it in the bug description - or if we find the steps > to > > > recreate it in the comments and then copy them to the description! Its > > > my hope that this tag will allow us to find very high quality bugs. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > -- > > > Brian Murray > > > Ubuntu Bug Master > > > > > > -- > Brian Murray > Ubuntu Bug Master > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAk5yDrQACgkQDTAwc5ER+zWztQCeMG5r2bpd+vCeWSJU+8/AkZYe > nYkAn0yNa467W4nK7uaf5VenMR3BzJ9k > =C1+e > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Ubuntu-bugsquad mailing list > Ubuntu-bugsquad at lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugsquad > > a video tutorial would be great for .. getting started, setting up launchpad, setting up your testing environment, triaging your first bug .. ect ect -- Thank you for your time ~Nathan nathan1465 at gmail.com *Please consider the environment before printing this email. * This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 15 16:22:44 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 16:22:44 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Status=22_by_brian-murray?= Message-ID: <20110915162244.5931.76216@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Status" page has been changed by brian-murray: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status?action=diff&rev1=56&rev2=57 * A member of [[UbuntuBugControl]] believes that the report describes a genuine bug in enough detail that a developer could start working on a fix. ''(also see tip below)'' * Use this when you are confident that it should be looked at by a developer '''and''' has enough information * While not a requirement a bug's Ubuntu task status will be Triaged before any upstream forwarding occurs + * With bugs about '''linux''' Triaged means that the bug has been tested with the upstream mainline kernel * '''In Progress''': * If '''you''' are working on fixing a bug, set it to {{{In Progress}}} so people know what's going on * {{{In Progress}}} bugs should be assigned to the person working on them From brian at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 15 19:54:36 2011 From: brian at ubuntu.com (Brian Murray) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:54:36 -0700 Subject: Article regarding package install failures Message-ID: <20110915195436.GP3395@murraytwins.com> I just saw a great article[1] on planet.ubuntu.com regarding how to troubleshoot a common package installation failure. Remember that package installation failures can be found by the tag 'apport-package'. [1] http://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/09/13/understand-dpkg-and-dont-get-stuck-with-a-maintainer-script-failure/ -- Brian Murray Ubuntu Bug Master -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Mon Sep 19 14:43:55 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:43:55 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22PulseAudio/Log=22_by_diwic?= Message-ID: <20110919144355.31681.26779@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "PulseAudio/Log" page has been changed by diwic: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/PulseAudio/Log?action=diff&rev1=8&rev2=9 Comment: Simplified it a little {{{ echo autospawn = no >> ~/.pulse/client.conf killall pulseaudio - LANG=C pulseaudio -vvvv > ~/pulseverbose.log 2>&1 + LANG=C pulseaudio -vvvv --log-time=1 > ~/pulseverbose.log 2>&1 - }}} - - * Open a second terminal and enter this command: - {{{ - pacmd set-log-time 1 }}} * Do what you need to reproduce the bug. From megbsk at gmail.com Tue Sep 20 10:55:04 2011 From: megbsk at gmail.com (meghana raghavendra) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:25:04 +0530 Subject: request for joining mailing list Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From axtelnemeth at yahoo.com Tue Sep 20 22:04:07 2011 From: axtelnemeth at yahoo.com (Axtel Nemeth) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: installation issues with 11.04/11.10 Message-ID: <1316556247.53136.YahooMailNeo@web45612.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have some computers on my network  that use a PNY Technologies S-Cure hardware raid controller. Pervious versions 8.04 though 10.10 worked fine, all Windows from 2000 to Windows7 work fine.   Something has changed with the grub installation starting with v11.04 and now v11.10. When you try and start the computer it gives a grub error message. I can't run apport because, I can't even get to the desktop.  So I can't do the normal bug reporting when it's a install failure of some kind. Tried Launchpad twice and got zero answers , so I haven't been able to upgrade those computers yet. So, I'm trying this, not real technical , but I'm running ubuntu almost 100% of the time. Really like it, and I hope this can be resolved thank you for any help -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noreply at ubuntu.com Wed Sep 21 16:58:04 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:58:04 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Unity/FilingBugs=22_by_dbarth?= Message-ID: <20110921165804.19160.57107@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Unity/FilingBugs" page has been changed by dbarth: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Unity/FilingBugs?action=diff&rev1=44&rev2=45 || Patch needs author to sign Canonical Contributer agreement || Looks good but before we merge it we need you to sign the Canonical contributer agreement. It's a quick, but necessary step to getting your code into the tree. Luckily you only need to sign it once and it will apply to all other Canonical project contributions you may make in the future. http://www.canonical.com/contributors Make sure to CC David Barth when you send it in. || || || Blocked waiting for design decision || This bug is awaiting design feedback before progress can be made. Confirming that there is a question to be answered. Will be marked triaged when design gives a suitable direction forward. || Mark status as ''incomplete'', and tag ''needs-design'' until design gives feedback. || || Bug reported from clutter based Unity || This bug was reported against an old version of Unity. The new version of Unity is almost an entire rewrite based on very different technologies. Could you please check if this issue is present in the current version, and if it is reopen the bug to a NEW status. || Set the bug to WONTFIX, and let the user reopen it || + || Bug report with on a development snapshot or with no recent activity || This bug was reported against a development snapshot of Unity and it's missing a number of elements to be actionable:<
>- there seems to be no reports of further occurences of it<
>- the information provided is not sufficient to track down the issue to a programming error in a particular part of the code<
>- the bug cannot be reproduced reliably.<
>Could you please check if this issue is present in the current version, and if it is reopen the bug to a NEW status. || Set the bug to INVALID, and let the user reopen it || || Bugs that don't appear to be Unity related at all || The issue you're describing doesn't sound related to Unity. Could you log into a classic gnome session and see if this issue persists? || || || Crashers for which you'd like the user to get a stack trace || Could you please follow the instructions on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Unity/FilingBugs#Getting%20a%20stack%20trace and attach unity.log to this bug report? || || From noreply at ubuntu.com Wed Sep 21 17:01:53 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:01:53 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Unity/FilingBugs=22_by_dbarth?= Message-ID: <20110921170153.26798.1142@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Unity/FilingBugs" page has been changed by dbarth: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Unity/FilingBugs?action=diff&rev1=45&rev2=46 || Patch needs author to sign Canonical Contributer agreement || Looks good but before we merge it we need you to sign the Canonical contributer agreement. It's a quick, but necessary step to getting your code into the tree. Luckily you only need to sign it once and it will apply to all other Canonical project contributions you may make in the future. http://www.canonical.com/contributors Make sure to CC David Barth when you send it in. || || || Blocked waiting for design decision || This bug is awaiting design feedback before progress can be made. Confirming that there is a question to be answered. Will be marked triaged when design gives a suitable direction forward. || Mark status as ''incomplete'', and tag ''needs-design'' until design gives feedback. || || Bug reported from clutter based Unity || This bug was reported against an old version of Unity. The new version of Unity is almost an entire rewrite based on very different technologies. Could you please check if this issue is present in the current version, and if it is reopen the bug to a NEW status. || Set the bug to WONTFIX, and let the user reopen it || - || Bug report with on a development snapshot or with no recent activity || This bug was reported against a development snapshot of Unity and it's missing a number of elements to be actionable:<
>- there seems to be no reports of further occurences of it<
>- the information provided is not sufficient to track down the issue to a programming error in a particular part of the code<
>- the bug cannot be reproduced reliably.<
>Could you please check if this issue is present in the current version, and if it is reopen the bug to a NEW status. || Set the bug to INVALID, and let the user reopen it || + || Bug report on a development snapshot or with no recent activity || This bug was reported on a development snapshot of Unity but lacks elements for it to be actionable:<
>- there seems to be no reports of further occurences of the issue<
>- the bug cannot be reproduced reliably<
>- the information provided is not sufficient to track down the issue to a particular programming error.<
>Could you please check if this issue is present in the current version, and if it is reopen the bug to a NEW status. || Set the bug to INVALID, and let the user reopen it || || Bugs that don't appear to be Unity related at all || The issue you're describing doesn't sound related to Unity. Could you log into a classic gnome session and see if this issue persists? || || || Crashers for which you'd like the user to get a stack trace || Could you please follow the instructions on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Unity/FilingBugs#Getting%20a%20stack%20trace and attach unity.log to this bug report? || || From axtelnemeth at yahoo.com Thu Sep 22 13:48:28 2011 From: axtelnemeth at yahoo.com (Axtel Nemeth) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Install problems Message-ID: <1316699308.64546.YahooMailNeo@web45609.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I can't provide you with any bug numbers it won't even start up and run. I just get the grub error message and that's it. v8.04 through 10.10 run fine on these hardware raid controllers. when it won't even start up and run that's about as bad as it gets. They have changed something about the grub since v10.10 and I don't know any more because it won't even run. I realize that's very difficult because the normal system of reporting bugs just doesn't work in this case. At first when 11.04 was a beta v. I was able to do a workaround by making a small partition (ei. 1gb) and designating it as a boot partition, and then telling it to install grub there.  With subsequent updates that stopped working. Also I have tried telling it to put grub in other partitions, and that doesn't work either.  This is just a guess,but I suspect that it won't install or recognize grub in another partition even if you tell it to. I can't verify that, because it won't even run,and I'm probably not technical enough either. All I can say is all the Windows os's from 2000 to 7 work, all the ubuntu v's from 8.04-10.10 work. Other linux (suse 11.04ect) work, it's only the ubuntu v11 series that doesn't work. I'd like to get this to work if it's possible because these hardware raid controllers are really fast! Hopefully there is a solution and in the meanwhile v10.10 is doing fine for now :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cyan.spam at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 00:59:27 2011 From: cyan.spam at gmail.com (David Tombs) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:59:27 -0400 Subject: Install problems In-Reply-To: <1316699308.64546.YahooMailNeo@web45609.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <1316699308.64546.YahooMailNeo@web45609.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4E82716F.70105@gmail.com> On 09/22/2011 09:48 AM, Axtel Nemeth wrote: > I can't provide you with any bug numbers it won't even start up and run. > I just get the grub error message and that's it. v8.04 through 10.10 run > fine on these hardware raid controllers. when it won't even start up and > run that's about as bad as it gets. > > They have changed something about the grub since v10.10 and I don't know > any more because it won't even run. I realize that's very difficult > because the normal system of reporting bugs just doesn't work in this case. > > At first when 11.04 was a beta v. I was able to do a workaround by > making a small partition (ei. 1gb) and designating it as a boot > partition, and then telling it to install grub there. With subsequent > updates that stopped working. Also I have tried telling it to put grub > in other partitions, and that doesn't work either. This is just a > guess,but I suspect that it won't install or recognize grub in another > partition even if you tell it to. I can't verify that, because it won't > even run,and I'm probably not technical enough either. > > All I can say is all the Windows os's from 2000 to 7 work, all the > ubuntu v's from 8.04-10.10 work. Other linux (suse 11.04ect) work, it's > only the ubuntu v11 series that doesn't work. I'd like to get this to > work if it's possible because these hardware raid controllers are really > fast! > > Hopefully there is a solution and in the meanwhile v10.10 is doing fine > for now :) > Hi Axtel, Sorry to hear you're having trouble, but this is not actually the list to get help. This list is only for discussing bug triage work, and not for reporting bugs themselves. I hope you can find some answers using one of the options at . Thanks, David From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 29 10:14:04 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:14:04 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Tags=22_by_dbarth?= Message-ID: <20110929101404.31295.47189@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Tags" page has been changed by dbarth: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Tags?action=diff&rev1=185&rev2=186 == Other specific bug tags == + === Unity === + + The full list of tags for Unity is maintained at: [[Unity/FilingBugs#Bug_Tags]], including: + + || '''Tag''' || '''Use case''' || + || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bugs?field.tag=unity|`unity`]] || Compiz bugs which are affecting Unity || + || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=running-unity|`running-unity`]] || Bugs reported by people who are running Unity || + || [[https://launchpad.net/unity/+bugs?field.tag=bitesize|`bitesize`]] || Smaller bugs that would be ideal for new contributors. || + || [[https://launchpad.net/unity/+bugs?field.tag=needs-design|`needs-design`]] || A bug that needs UI design done first. || + || [[https://launchpad.net/unity/+bugs?field.tag=backlog|`backlog`]] || Things that design has done and has finished on that needs to be implemented. || + + + === Ayatana === Specific bugs concerning parts of the [[https://launchpad.net/ayatana|Ayatana project]]. From noreply at ubuntu.com Thu Sep 29 14:42:10 2011 From: noreply at ubuntu.com (Ubuntu Wiki) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:42:10 -0000 Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BUbuntu_Wiki=5D_Update_of_=22Bugs/Tags=22_by_brian-murray?= Message-ID: <20110929144210.4695.90158@mangaba.canonical.com> Dear Wiki user, You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Ubuntu Wiki" for change notification. The "Bugs/Tags" page has been changed by brian-murray: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Tags?action=diff&rev1=186&rev2=187 Comment: Removed redundant bitesize tag from unity section since it applies to all bugs || '''Tag''' || '''Use case''' || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bugs?field.tag=unity|`unity`]] || Compiz bugs which are affecting Unity || || [[https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=running-unity|`running-unity`]] || Bugs reported by people who are running Unity || - || [[https://launchpad.net/unity/+bugs?field.tag=bitesize|`bitesize`]] || Smaller bugs that would be ideal for new contributors. || || [[https://launchpad.net/unity/+bugs?field.tag=needs-design|`needs-design`]] || A bug that needs UI design done first. || || [[https://launchpad.net/unity/+bugs?field.tag=backlog|`backlog`]] || Things that design has done and has finished on that needs to be implemented. || - === Ayatana === From shooterhande at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 16:12:34 2011 From: shooterhande at gmail.com (hande chan) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:12:34 +0800 Subject: =?Big5?B?tUyqa6rsqWykxq5NpfO46rBUdXBkYXRlLW1hbmFnZXI=?= Message-ID: E:Problem parsing dependency Replaces, E:在處理 exim4-base 時發生錯誤 (NewVersion1), E:Problem with MergeList /var/lib/apt/lists/security.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_lucid-security_main_binary-amd64_Packages, E:無法分析或開啟套件清單或狀況檔。' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: